O'Kelly Isley III Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 8 hours ago, Left Back said: It really isn’t a non-story. Despite what you might think about it the notional idea of the enquiry is to understand what went on during the pandemic to learn lessons. Without access to all the information it can’t do that. Whether it has a hope in hell of achieving those objectives even with all the information is an entirely different question. It’s brought to light a somewhat lax attitude to record keeping by the Scottish Government so the processes can’t be examined. Depending on your point of view this could be classed as stupidity, incompetence or an organised cover-up. If it wasn’t an issue I doubt the FM would be apologising about it both in FMQ’s and at the enquiry itself or starting both an internal and external review about it. Genuine question. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish and Welsh administrations, are WhatsApp messages legally classed as official communications ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 48 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: Genuine question. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish and Welsh administrations, are WhatsApp messages legally classed as official communications ? Work phone or personal phone? Work phone, yes. Personal, not sure if legally, but I would think it is up to the investigation to decide what is relevant. Not the individual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: Genuine question. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish and Welsh administrations, are WhatsApp messages legally classed as official communications ? Given a Director General of the Scottish Government reminded ministers and officials that they were 'FOI-able' and to delete them citing "plausible deniability" being his middle name (probably in jest tbf). I expect we all know the answer to your question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: Genuine question. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish and Welsh administrations, are WhatsApp messages legally classed as official communications ? No idea about legally but on a government owned device using an app that’s sanctioned for info processing by official policy I think any right-minded person would regard that as official comms. As it’s a government owned device they own the data on it unless it’s clearly labelled as personal. In a BYOD scenario where someone is using whatsapp on a non-government device that’s a lot less clear but the enquiry has shown (i think they had to go to court for this as well) they can compel individuals to hand this over. One of the obvious lessons is to have a better policy on what mediums can or can’t be used to conduct official business. Compliance retention of information processed on mobile devices isn’t as seamless or mature as things like email journaling or landline call recording but there are tools available to do it. Edited January 27 by Left Back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, Left Back said: No idea about legally but on a government owned device using an app that’s sanctioned for info processing by official policy I think any right-minded person would regard that as official comms. As it’s a government owned device they own the data on it unless it’s clearly labelled as personal. In a BYOD scenario where someone is using whatsapp on a non-government device that’s a lot less clear but the enquiry has shown (i think they had to go to court for this as well) they can compel individuals to hand this over. One of the obvious lessons is to have a better policy on what mediums can or can’t be used to conduct official business. Compliance retention of information processed on mobile devices isn’t as seamless or mature as things like email journaling or landline call recording but there are tools available to do it. I think your last paragraph is key, and the issue is maybe another where long established political and legal norms are now floundering in the wake of rapidly-moving modern media technology - see also internet content and regulation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Brazil Forever Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 hours ago, Left Back said: No idea about legally but on a government owned device using an app that’s sanctioned for info processing by official policy I think any right-minded person would regard that as official comms. As it’s a government owned device they own the data on it unless it’s clearly labelled as personal. In a BYOD scenario where someone is using whatsapp on a non-government device that’s a lot less clear but the enquiry has shown (i think they had to go to court for this as well) they can compel individuals to hand this over. One of the obvious lessons is to have a better policy on what mediums can or can’t be used to conduct official business. Compliance retention of information processed on mobile devices isn’t as seamless or mature as things like email journaling or landline call recording but there are tools available to do it. And I thought Government owned devices were used for watching fitba matches and charging costs to to the taxpayer. Turns out they were also used by potty mouth politicians and Civil Servants to determine policy involving life or death decisions as well as instituting a range of new criminal charges which they then sought to evade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRocketman II Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 20 minutes ago, Blue Brazil Forever said: And I thought Government owned devices were used for watching fitba matches and charging costs to to the taxpayer. Turns out they were also used by potty mouth politicians and Civil Servants to determine policy involving life or death decisions as well as instituting a range of new criminal charges which they then sought to evade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Potty mouth politicians 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 16 hours ago, Left Back said: It really isn’t a non-story. Despite what you might think about it the notional idea of the enquiry is to understand what went on during the pandemic to learn lessons. Without access to all the information it can’t do that. Whether it has a hope in hell of achieving those objectives even with all the information is an entirely different question. It’s brought to light a somewhat lax attitude to record keeping by the Scottish Government so the processes can’t be examined. Depending on your point of view this could be classed as stupidity, incompetence or an organised cover-up. If it wasn’t an issue I doubt the FM would be apologising about it both in FMQ’s and at the enquiry itself or starting both an internal and external review about it. It really is -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 8 hours ago, Blue Brazil Forever said: And I thought Government owned devices were used for watching fitba matches and charging costs to to the taxpayer. Turns out they were also used by potty mouth politicians and Civil Servants to determine policy involving life or death decisions as well as instituting a range of new criminal charges which they then sought to evade. If anything this charade of an inquiry has shown we simply don't know what they were or were not used for. There has been zero evidence they were used for anything you mention bar foul mouthed rants which are totally irrelevant to the matter being investigated. The whole narrative is being driven in completely the wrong direction ie away from how we they arrived at the decisions they did. It's all centering on social media type messaging which is telling us nothing meaningful but makes for sensationalist headlines that deflect the inquiry further and further from its objective. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said: If anything this charade of an inquiry has shown we simply don't know what they were or were not used for. There has been zero evidence they were used for anything you mention bar foul mouthed rants which are totally irrelevant to the matter being investigated. The whole narrative is being driven in completely the wrong direction ie away from how we they arrived at the decisions they did. It's all centering on social media type messaging which is telling us nothing meaningful but makes for sensationalist headlines that deflect the inquiry further and further from its objective. Don't mistake media coverage for inquiry aims. As for charade, it's a little early for it to be called that, albeit I never noticed you calling it this whilst it was taking evidence from down south. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Ultimately, of course there will no doubt be thousands of these messages with someone asking Nicola if she wanted milk in her latte, and clearly these can all be dismissed as 'irrelevant'. However, within many other messages will be decision making by those in power. To arrogantly laugh at the public over 'deletion' of them as they have done, is not a good look, to say the least. To retort with 'but the Tories did worse' doesn't wash either. This is a govt which is still under investigation with Branchform, an upcoming legal action by Salmond over their conduct, and now wants to sweep the Covid period under the carpet with 'but, but, Nicola appeared oan the telly every day so she did' isn't good enough. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Haud oan - you can get a latte without milk? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRocketman II Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 8 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Ultimately, of course there will no doubt be thousands of these messages with someone asking Nicola if she wanted milk in her latte, and clearly these can all be dismissed as 'irrelevant'. However, within many other messages will be decision making by those in power. To arrogantly laugh at the public over 'deletion' of them as they have done, is not a good look, to say the least. To retort with 'but the Tories did worse' doesn't wash either. This is a govt which is still under investigation with Branchform, an upcoming legal action by Salmond over their conduct, and now wants to sweep the Covid period under the carpet with 'but, but, Nicola appeared oan the telly every day so she did' isn't good enough. an onlooker's purported point of view offered via a "quote" in Scottish vernacular...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 10 hours ago, strichener said: Don't mistake media coverage for inquiry aims. As for charade, it's a little early for it to be called that, albeit I never noticed you calling it this whilst it was taking evidence from down south. I'm on record numerous times that all public inquiries are a monumental waste of money. You seem to be missing my point completely. To have any chance of even having a chance of reaching any sort of meaningful conclusions they whole focus needs to shift, the media are seizing on totally irrelevant "evidence" and they in turn are driving the narrative further away from the real issues. Take today, newspaper front pages about what Leitch was paid for his contributions including to Off The Ball ffs. The whole thing is a total whitewash and as I said before while stuff like that and Sturgeon swearing are the hot takes, the actual purpose ie how did they reach some of the baffling decisions they did, seems further away than ever. The media aren't making this stuff up, they are simply reporting on who said what each day so I'm not sure you can disconnect that from where it's headed. We all know the actual "aims", they were clearly laid out at the beginning but it's very difficult to see them getting anywhere close the way it's going. Do you honestly think anything we are going to see any outcome that properly explains how we ended up where we did and why and I'm talking overall (this is set to be a travelling circus lasting up to years) ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 51 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: I'm on record numerous times that all public inquiries are a monumental waste of money. You seem to be missing my point completely. To have any chance of even having a chance of reaching any sort of meaningful conclusions they whole focus needs to shift, the media are seizing on totally irrelevant "evidence" and they in turn are driving the narrative further away from the real issues. Take today, newspaper front pages about what Leitch was paid for his contributions including to Off The Ball ffs. The whole thing is a total whitewash and as I said before while stuff like that and Sturgeon swearing are the hot takes, the actual purpose ie how did they reach some of the baffling decisions they did, seems further away than ever. The media aren't making this stuff up, they are simply reporting on who said what each day so I'm not sure you can disconnect that from where it's headed. We all know the actual "aims", they were clearly laid out at the beginning but it's very difficult to see them getting anywhere close the way it's going. Do you honestly think anything we are going to see any outcome that properly explains how we ended up where we did and why and I'm talking overall (this is set to be a travelling circus lasting up to years) ? Once again, you are confusing the media narrative with the inquiry aims. Do you have any evidence that the media is setting the agenda for the inquiry? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 3 hours ago, strichener said: Once again, you are confusing the media narrative with the inquiry aims. Do you have any evidence that the media is setting the agenda for the inquiry? Where would you suppose the media sourced the material that only the pruriant and malevolent are interested in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 10 minutes ago, sophia said: only the pruriant and malevolent are interested in? Does that include the many famies who lost loved ones during Covid? Is that what they are? 'Pruriant and Malevolent'? Just because they might want to know how Saint Nicola made decisions in that period. The arrogance of the Scottish govt and its ever diminishing cabal of fans knows no bounds. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 minute ago, Jedi2 said: Does that include the many famies who lost loved ones during Covid? Is that what they are? 'Pruriant and Malevolent'? Just because they might want to know how Saint Nicola made decisions in that period. The arrogance of the Scottish govt and its ever diminishing cabal of fans knows no bounds. Your hyperbole is noted and discounted. There is a difference between what is important and what is not. I am not at all sure that the enquiry team has struck the right balance with what they have shared. As such, the focus is not where it should be and that in and of itself is a disservice to those that have suffered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 24 minutes ago, sophia said: Where would you suppose the media sourced the material that only the pruriant and malevolent are interested in? I know exactly where this was sourced. Now if you could point me to where the media have printed transcripts of the entire evidence provided to the inquiry then I will retract my previous comments. We both, of course, know that this hasn't happened and the media are taking parts of the evidence that they think will sell most copies or generate most clicks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.